T2 Subfields and Hormones Correlations with Subject 438
Shuying Yu and Caitlin Taylor
08/24/2022
Overview
This report provides exploratory and preliminary correlation analyses between sex hormones and T2 unretouched, raw hippocampal subfield data from the Healthy Aging Study sample (subjects 333 - 437, with 438 appended).
Black diamond points are the group means. Highlighted in purple triangle point and purple line is subject 438. Note that subject 438 was on estrogen HRT at the time of her scan and blood draw.
Cleaning data steps included:
- Filter participants that have T2 subfield data from scan
- Select sex hormone measures from when scan was conducted
- Correct left and right volumes with TIV
- Average left and right volumes to get an average measure for each subfield region
Sample size:
Men = 24
Women = 63 (24 pre, 20 peri, 19 post)
Hormone Distributions
Reproductive Status
For women, hormones will be log transformed to allow for Pearson correlations to run in the subsequent analyses (by reproductive stage)
Men and Women
For any correlation analyses between women and men, hormones will also be log transformed for Pearson correlations.
Men Only
For just men, log transformation will also be applied in the following Pearson correlations
T2 Subfield Volume
CA1
Subject 438: average volume of 0.6379874
Structural Comparison
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| repo_status | 2 | 0.0151012 | 0.0075506 | 1.520983 | 0.2268011 |
| Residuals | 60 | 0.2978570 | 0.0049643 | NA | NA |
ANOVA results comparing CA1 subfield by reproductive status was not significant.
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: avg_ca1 by sex
## t = 3.216, df = 52.242, p-value = 0.002232
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group Female and group Male is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.01761859 0.07607124
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Female mean in group Male
## 0.5872078 0.5403629T-test results comparing CA1 subfield by sex was significant.
Hormone Correlation by Reproductive Status
Hormone Correlation by Sex
CA2/3
Subject 438: average volume of 0.2456474
Structural Comparison
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| repo_status | 2 | 0.0019035 | 0.0009517 | 0.493987 | 0.6126484 |
| Residuals | 60 | 0.1155978 | 0.0019266 | NA | NA |
ANOVA results comparing CA23 subfield by reproductive status was not significant.
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: avg_ca23 by sex
## t = 2.5392, df = 48.975, p-value = 0.01434
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group Female and group Male is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.004920838 0.042268912
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Female mean in group Male
## 0.2467289 0.2231340T-test results comparing CA23 subfield by sex was significant.
Hormone Correlation by Reproductive Status
Hormone Correlation by Sex
DG
Subject 438: average volume of 0.7845671
Structural Comparison
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| repo_status | 2 | 0.0083941 | 0.0041971 | 0.750208 | 0.4766459 |
| Residuals | 60 | 0.3356715 | 0.0055945 | NA | NA |
ANOVA results comparing DG subfield by reproductive status was not significant.
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: avg_dg by sex
## t = 2.0854, df = 43.206, p-value = 0.04298
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group Female and group Male is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.00119681 0.07118450
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Female mean in group Male
## 0.6192800 0.5830894T-test results comparing DG subfield by sex was significant.
Hormone Correlation by Reproductive Status
Hormone Correlation by Sex
ERC
Subject 438: average volume of 0.4945524
Structural Comparison
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| repo_status | 2 | 0.0407582 | 0.0203791 | 4.123448 | 0.0209918 |
| Residuals | 60 | 0.2965350 | 0.0049423 | NA | NA |
ANOVA results comparing ERC subfield by reproductive status was significant.
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: avg_erc by sex
## t = 3.5175, df = 55.723, p-value = 0.0008746
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group Female and group Male is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.02204370 0.08038099
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Female mean in group Male
## 0.4655728 0.4143605T-test results comparing ERC subfield by sex was significant.
Hormone Correlation by Reproductive Status
Hormone Correlation by Sex
PHC
Subject 438: average volume of 1.676401
Structural Comparison
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| repo_status | 2 | 0.0516381 | 0.0258191 | 0.6318458 | 0.5351094 |
| Residuals | 60 | 2.4517754 | 0.0408629 | NA | NA |
ANOVA results comparing PHC subfield by reproductive status was not significant.
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: avg_phc by sex
## t = 2.2998, df = 38.699, p-value = 0.02694
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group Female and group Male is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.01419269 0.22180438
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Female mean in group Male
## 1.674716 1.556717T-test results comparing PHC subfield by sex was significant.
Hormone Correlation by Reproductive Status
Hormone Correlation by Sex
PRC
Subject 438: average volume of 1.842525
Structural Comparison
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| repo_status | 2 | 0.211709 | 0.1058545 | 0.7813027 | 0.4624106 |
| Residuals | 60 | 8.129078 | 0.1354846 | NA | NA |
ANOVA results comparing PRC subfield by reproductive status was not significant.
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: avg_prc by sex
## t = 0.50652, df = 39.953, p-value = 0.6153
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group Female and group Male is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.1378815 0.2301021
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Female mean in group Male
## 1.652974 1.606863T-test results comparing PRC subfield by sex was not significant.
Hormone Correlation by Reproductive Status
Hormone Correlation by Sex
SUB
Subject 438: average volume of 0.3528027
Structural Comparison
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| repo_status | 2 | 0.0060737 | 0.0030368 | 1.392181 | 0.2564443 |
| Residuals | 60 | 0.1308814 | 0.0021814 | NA | NA |
ANOVA results comparing SUB subfield by reproductive status was not significant.
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: avg_sub by sex
## t = 2.8303, df = 53.988, p-value = 0.006517
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group Female and group Male is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.007799812 0.045688732
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Female mean in group Male
## 0.3732318 0.3464875T-test results comparing SUB subfield by sex was significant.
Hormone Correlation by Reproductive Status
Hormone Correlation by Sex
Summary
Subregion volumes for women and men were generally normally distributed. There appears to be two women whose SUB volumes appear to be outliers. Hormones were generally right skewed, so log transformations were applied to run Pearson correlations.
No significant trends seen in Pearson correlations for DHEAS.
No significant trends seen in Pearson correlations for men.
ANOVA results comparing subfields by reproductive stage were not significant for almost all subfields. ANOVA results for ERC was significant by reproductive stage (p < 0.05).
T-test results comparing subfields by sex were all significant (at least p < 0.05) except for PRC.
For estradiol, it was significantly negatively correlated with CA1 for peris (p = 0.036) and with DG for peris (p = 0.04), and marginally negatively correlated with CA23 for peris (p = 0.065).
For progesterone, it was significantly positively correlated with CA1 for posts (p = 0.033) and with ERC for posts (p = 0.015).
For FSH, it was significantly negatively correlated with ERC for posts (p = 0.015) and with PHC for posts (p = 0.045). PHC volume and FSH were marginally negatively correlated among women as a group (p = 0.062). FSH is also marginally negatively correlated with CA1 for posts (p = 0.08) and with SUB for posts (p = 0.074).
For testosterone, it was marginally positively associated with DG for pres (p = 0.066).
For SHBG, it was significantly negatively correlated with ERC for posts (p < 0.01). It was also negatively correlated with PRC among women as a group (p = 0.028) and marginally negatively correlated with PRC for pres (p = 0.057).